Slarty, please expound on how it is exactly that the French helped to beat the Nazi's in more than just a token way.SlartyBartFast wrote:
Interesting opinion j-bass. I would actually argue that reason all of Europe is not speaking German is largely due to the British, French & Russian forces and the reason Australia (and the rest of the Asia-Pacific rim) is not speaking Japanese is largely due to the US.
Moore is an asshat. I wish you would explain more about the scene that shows whatever. Diplomacy is good for some things, but in Iraq it has failed, for the past 15 years. Not only that Saddam wasn't even a good leader for Iraq. Bush maybe not a good leader now, but 4 years from now that will change.Tempelridderen wrote:
Have you seen bowling for columbine? There is one scene there that showes that what the U.S i doing isn't to rewarding. . Personally I find diplomacy as a better way to solve problems..
It's not like forging evidence that say that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction is a smart thing to do, it was just a matter of time berfore the whole s*** blew up in their face. Everybody knows that the war in Iraq is all about oil.
Nobody denies the war in Iraq is about oil. Its one of the largest oil producers in the world. The thing is, its not about who gets the oil, its about stopping the Oil For Food program which was worse for the Iraqis then anything else because it did not work. The US isn't going to seize control over the oil in Iraq, that would create a large international political incident. The Iraqis oil is their oil.
Securing Iraq means securing that the production of oil happens, and that funny stuff doesn't go on. Iraq will now play a part in the global economy by selling their oil, and not have to go through stupid stuff like oil for food or whatever.
The other key part is we freed a people from their malovent dictator. Some of the intelligence that was put on TV was wrong. Intelligence isn't an exact science all the time.
WMD is an easier sell then say, freeing the Iraqi people. And its much easier sell then to say you are going there for oil, since everyone would be in an uproar over that.
Regarding the WWII US involvment
I do not think that the nazis would have won the WWII if yanks stayed out of it. At some point of time, Soviets would hit back very hard, but then the entire Europe could speak Russian. The fanatical approach with no regard to human life whatsoever would have led the Soviets to victory in WWII in any way. I mean, the bottom line - it was the soviet flag on Reichstag in destroyed Berlin. The problem with Jerries was with their leadership. Luckily for the world, Hitler was not too keen to listen to advice of his generals on the way how Eastern Front could be conquered. Namely, instead of going to Moscow and Leningrad (today's St. Peterburg), he could have headed south to Caucassus and capture the oil - which he needed. (oil - keyword number one). I presume that generals, in particular men like Rommel, knew this. If he was the Fuhrer, I am afraid that maybe we would be all speaking German today. Nevertheless, history has thought us that the plans to take over the world will NEVER be successful in military way, by arms. There will always be a set of circumstances that will end such plot.
History is written by winners, and only today we can hear of attrocities commited by allies in WWII, when all is over and many of the responsible men have passed away. Being victor, should not relieve anyone from responsibility for his actions in war. Some may say that war is messy and give a lot of explanations and excuses. THERE ARE NO EXCUSES FOR SUCH BEHAVIOUR. Not a single side, in WWII has been victim only.
The aggression, as I see it, from the US comes in much more different form - it comes as as desire to impose certain lifestyle upon differnt nations. Like, double standards which are applied to same breed of men in different situations. This is for example, very US like. The same Saddam was supported by US in Iran/Iraq war. The repressionist regime in Cambodia, which killed millions of its own men was supported in their fight against Vientam. I mean if you look at percentage of population killed - Cambodia was a disaster that Iraq with sadam in powe will hardly ever reach. Coming back to double standars is when you call islamist extremist in some parts of the worls "terrorists" and in the other "freedom fighters".
There are hundreds of different regimes in the world, many in Africa, where rulers could consider Saddam a pathetic amateur in manslaugher - yet nothing is done. Maybe because there are no resources there?! My point is - when people are fed up with a regime - they overthrow it. Thousands die, but it is the will of the people. Different nations, with different cultures, traditions and views on the world should be free to practice their religions, live their own lifestyle... as long as they do not threaten lives of other nations. Please mind that I am saying lives, not lifesyles. I am very sorry that you can no longer buy a swimming pool of petrol for five cents in the US and lifestyle is not a priority. Preservation of life on the planet is. IMO, US is not contributing to that and that is why it is THE aggressor of the century.
But, my estimation is that in first half of 21st century, we will see new powers surfacing. Also, please mind that I do not wish anyone - not a single nation or person any harm. It is just the way life is. Everything happens. Once you taste the power, it is very hard to get off that drug. I think it will be hard for many yanks at some point to realise that their country is not what it used to be. Same was with Soviets/Russians, Brits and i guess Romans, at some point. Life goes on. Just decide how much you want to take from it and are you willing to sacrifce life and career to make a small chapter in the book called "HISTORY".
I do not think that the nazis would have won the WWII if yanks stayed out of it. At some point of time, Soviets would hit back very hard, but then the entire Europe could speak Russian. The fanatical approach with no regard to human life whatsoever would have led the Soviets to victory in WWII in any way. I mean, the bottom line - it was the soviet flag on Reichstag in destroyed Berlin. The problem with Jerries was with their leadership. Luckily for the world, Hitler was not too keen to listen to advice of his generals on the way how Eastern Front could be conquered. Namely, instead of going to Moscow and Leningrad (today's St. Peterburg), he could have headed south to Caucassus and capture the oil - which he needed. (oil - keyword number one). I presume that generals, in particular men like Rommel, knew this. If he was the Fuhrer, I am afraid that maybe we would be all speaking German today. Nevertheless, history has thought us that the plans to take over the world will NEVER be successful in military way, by arms. There will always be a set of circumstances that will end such plot.
History is written by winners, and only today we can hear of attrocities commited by allies in WWII, when all is over and many of the responsible men have passed away. Being victor, should not relieve anyone from responsibility for his actions in war. Some may say that war is messy and give a lot of explanations and excuses. THERE ARE NO EXCUSES FOR SUCH BEHAVIOUR. Not a single side, in WWII has been victim only.
The aggression, as I see it, from the US comes in much more different form - it comes as as desire to impose certain lifestyle upon differnt nations. Like, double standards which are applied to same breed of men in different situations. This is for example, very US like. The same Saddam was supported by US in Iran/Iraq war. The repressionist regime in Cambodia, which killed millions of its own men was supported in their fight against Vientam. I mean if you look at percentage of population killed - Cambodia was a disaster that Iraq with sadam in powe will hardly ever reach. Coming back to double standars is when you call islamist extremist in some parts of the worls "terrorists" and in the other "freedom fighters".
There are hundreds of different regimes in the world, many in Africa, where rulers could consider Saddam a pathetic amateur in manslaugher - yet nothing is done. Maybe because there are no resources there?! My point is - when people are fed up with a regime - they overthrow it. Thousands die, but it is the will of the people. Different nations, with different cultures, traditions and views on the world should be free to practice their religions, live their own lifestyle... as long as they do not threaten lives of other nations. Please mind that I am saying lives, not lifesyles. I am very sorry that you can no longer buy a swimming pool of petrol for five cents in the US and lifestyle is not a priority. Preservation of life on the planet is. IMO, US is not contributing to that and that is why it is THE aggressor of the century.
But, my estimation is that in first half of 21st century, we will see new powers surfacing. Also, please mind that I do not wish anyone - not a single nation or person any harm. It is just the way life is. Everything happens. Once you taste the power, it is very hard to get off that drug. I think it will be hard for many yanks at some point to realise that their country is not what it used to be. Same was with Soviets/Russians, Brits and i guess Romans, at some point. Life goes on. Just decide how much you want to take from it and are you willing to sacrifce life and career to make a small chapter in the book called "HISTORY".
I Wonder how the world whould be like as of 2005 if US had just minded their own bussines for lets say the last 35 years????
Ok, I see some people have fucked up views of thire own country, that is the USA and the american people. Now, I'm not saying that all americans are stupid but I sure am thinking it No seriously, someone said that if not becuse of the US we would all talk German....Yea right.
During the WWII 80% of the German military efforts was going east, yes to the russians! Sure you guys did some hell of a fighting at the west coast battling TWO WHOLE DIVISONS! Even the Germans knew that defending the west coast was pointless. They'd rather defend the east and help the Italians to the south. But I do know alot of young american lifes were lost fighting the Natzi, and I do think that was brave, but I don't really know if they were fighting for the Jews/other opressed minority. That's becuse everybody didn't know that those deathcamps existed back in say 1942, most kids signed up becuse of the money and "Go kick some German ass".
-"But hey! We would not be here today if not becuse of the USA! God bless us!"
Nah, more like fuck the US, fuck the US becuse of what they did during WWII, remember a town called Nagasaki? I DON'T CUSE IT WAS FUCKING BLOWN AWAY! Wait, more like fuck everyone who participated in WWII. Everyone made some big fuck ups during that time, especially some guy named Adolf(uckhead).
Could I ask the selfloving, selfish bastards who live in the US today to stop acting so superior like you were some badass cops waving your six shooter? Today US is going kinda straight to hell, how can you not be outraged that your current president cheated in the elections 2000! You chat about shitty rich man problems instead of using your power to make a difference. Gathering up during the G8 and fuck around for the taxpayers money! AAAAAARHG!
Call me a fucking lefty/commy, cuse thats what I am in your eyes! But ain't that your biggest fear? Normally I'm a nice guy and would never hurt another human or animal, but in one case I'll make an exeption, killing the dumbass named "Georg Walker Bush Jr.", give me a fucking gun and I'll take him down with the first and last shot.
If you didn't vote for Bush don't take this personally. If you did vote for him come visit me in Sweden where I am building a cannon so I can fire you into the sun.
(The text above should not be taken dead serious!)
During the WWII 80% of the German military efforts was going east, yes to the russians! Sure you guys did some hell of a fighting at the west coast battling TWO WHOLE DIVISONS! Even the Germans knew that defending the west coast was pointless. They'd rather defend the east and help the Italians to the south. But I do know alot of young american lifes were lost fighting the Natzi, and I do think that was brave, but I don't really know if they were fighting for the Jews/other opressed minority. That's becuse everybody didn't know that those deathcamps existed back in say 1942, most kids signed up becuse of the money and "Go kick some German ass".
-"But hey! We would not be here today if not becuse of the USA! God bless us!"
Nah, more like fuck the US, fuck the US becuse of what they did during WWII, remember a town called Nagasaki? I DON'T CUSE IT WAS FUCKING BLOWN AWAY! Wait, more like fuck everyone who participated in WWII. Everyone made some big fuck ups during that time, especially some guy named Adolf(uckhead).
Could I ask the selfloving, selfish bastards who live in the US today to stop acting so superior like you were some badass cops waving your six shooter? Today US is going kinda straight to hell, how can you not be outraged that your current president cheated in the elections 2000! You chat about shitty rich man problems instead of using your power to make a difference. Gathering up during the G8 and fuck around for the taxpayers money! AAAAAARHG!
Call me a fucking lefty/commy, cuse thats what I am in your eyes! But ain't that your biggest fear? Normally I'm a nice guy and would never hurt another human or animal, but in one case I'll make an exeption, killing the dumbass named "Georg Walker Bush Jr.", give me a fucking gun and I'll take him down with the first and last shot.
If you didn't vote for Bush don't take this personally. If you did vote for him come visit me in Sweden where I am building a cannon so I can fire you into the sun.
(The text above should not be taken dead serious!)
Give one example of a lie. A lie is knowing that you are purposely misleading in the information given.Ssandstorm wrote:
we all know now that america will never win the war in iraq, and that another vietnam style withdrawal is inevitable
they should never have gone in the first place and now their soldiers are paying the price for the governments lies
To say, "I will wear my white shirt tomorrow" only to find out that it's dirty and have to wear a blue shirt is not a lie.
"Interesting opinion j-bass. I would actually argue that reason all of Europe is not speaking German is largely due to the British, French & Russian forces", sorry but this made me laugh in real-life. Wow, just wow. LOL.
You can tell about a country by looking at its immigration, both legal and illegal.
A lie is to claim that a country has WMD, and you know it has not and based on that LIE, you decide to take action which you know will result in loss of human life. Mind that it is much more dangerous that saying you will wear white shirt and actually wearing a blue one. Just as an example. If you don't like that one for whatever reason - let me know - I will come up with new onewannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Give one example of a lie. A lie is knowing that you are purposely misleading in the information given.Ssandstorm wrote:
we all know now that america will never win the war in iraq, and that another vietnam style withdrawal is inevitable
they should never have gone in the first place and now their soldiers are paying the price for the governments lies
To say, "I will wear my white shirt tomorrow" only to find out that it's dirty and have to wear a blue shirt is not a lie.
Makes you wonder who is teaching these bafoons.Bravery wrote:
"Interesting opinion j-bass. I would actually argue that reason all of Europe is not speaking German is largely due to the British, French & Russian forces", sorry but this made me laugh in real-life. Wow, just wow. LOL.
So, you're saying Bush knew they didn't have WMD and they still went to war?1234BGD wrote:
A lie is to claim that a country has WMD, and you know it has not and based on that LIE, you decide to take action which you know will result in loss of human life. Mind that it is much more dangerous that saying you will wear white shirt and actually wearing a blue one. Just as an example. If you don't like that one for whatever reason - let me know - I will come up with new onewannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Give one example of a lie. A lie is knowing that you are purposely misleading in the information given.Ssandstorm wrote:
we all know now that america will never win the war in iraq, and that another vietnam style withdrawal is inevitable
they should never have gone in the first place and now their soldiers are paying the price for the governments lies
To say, "I will wear my white shirt tomorrow" only to find out that it's dirty and have to wear a blue shirt is not a lie.
What fantastic discussion...gets the cogs cranking in the head doesn't??
Darth_Fleder, through the French resistance, ordinary French people sacrificing thier lives to provide intellegence (Boy you US guy's have a thing about the French, Don't ya? . A lot of the information provided was crucial in turning the war effort. I think having your country invaded and then having the people, not soldiers, but people continue to fight and die, simply to defend thier way of life, is far from a token effort. If back in the 70's or 80's the US had been invaded by the then USSR (such as in the film Red Dawn) and the military machine of the US brought down (all hypothetical of course). If the people then formed an underground and fought the invaders, but in the end the US was saved by an alliance of say the British, Canadians, Australians (we'll bring the beer), and East Germany (or was it West back then, can't remember anymore) using intellegence provided by the US underground, would you consider the efforts of the US citizens a token one?
Kilroy,
Interesting you state something that never happended as fact (England falling had the US not joined in). Preposition, or fortold by Nostrodamus? . Seriously though we can only speculate. There a many events many histiorians claim were the acts that won the war...The invention of Radar by the british, The US joining the allies, The succesful ruse by the British in duping the Nazi's of the Landing location, The success of the Spitfire VS Meschermits (sic). I guess in the end it's all subjective.
Ask Pom (sorry Brit, they are Poms down under) they will tell you the turning point was the Battle of Britian, Ask a Rusian it was won on the Western Front,
It's obvious a large percentage of US people here believe without thier intervention the world was doomed.
Ask an Aussie and he'll say "Dunno mate, I was at the pub having a beer and missed the lot" No perscpective is wrong, it all depends what your country was doing and what was sacrificed at the time. We can do a lot of speculation about what mioght have happened.
What if the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbour, what would the US involvement been then?
What if Hitler did not create the western front and invade Russia (he did have a treaty with them) and concentrate efforts on the demise of Britain?
What if the assination attempts on Hitler by the Germans had been a success?
What if they Australians actually had left the pub (public bar)?
Fascinating to ponder and speculate but I don't think we can determine any of those specualtions as fact. In the end though I would speculate you are correct and without the involvement of the US war machine things may well have been very different. But ponder this, had the Germans known where the allies where to land would the outcome have been the same. Great efforts were made including the dumping of a corpse in the English Channel with fake intelligence papers to convince the Nazi machine the landing was taking place at an incorrect location, and it worked with the German forces concentrating defences at the wrong places. What if they were waiting for the Allies, what might have been the outcome then?
CBracky, very very funny (and possibly unervingly true?). And my last opinion is that Robin Williams is a genius..not a nut
Darth_Fleder, through the French resistance, ordinary French people sacrificing thier lives to provide intellegence (Boy you US guy's have a thing about the French, Don't ya? . A lot of the information provided was crucial in turning the war effort. I think having your country invaded and then having the people, not soldiers, but people continue to fight and die, simply to defend thier way of life, is far from a token effort. If back in the 70's or 80's the US had been invaded by the then USSR (such as in the film Red Dawn) and the military machine of the US brought down (all hypothetical of course). If the people then formed an underground and fought the invaders, but in the end the US was saved by an alliance of say the British, Canadians, Australians (we'll bring the beer), and East Germany (or was it West back then, can't remember anymore) using intellegence provided by the US underground, would you consider the efforts of the US citizens a token one?
Kilroy,
Interesting you state something that never happended as fact (England falling had the US not joined in). Preposition, or fortold by Nostrodamus? . Seriously though we can only speculate. There a many events many histiorians claim were the acts that won the war...The invention of Radar by the british, The US joining the allies, The succesful ruse by the British in duping the Nazi's of the Landing location, The success of the Spitfire VS Meschermits (sic). I guess in the end it's all subjective.
Ask Pom (sorry Brit, they are Poms down under) they will tell you the turning point was the Battle of Britian, Ask a Rusian it was won on the Western Front,
It's obvious a large percentage of US people here believe without thier intervention the world was doomed.
Ask an Aussie and he'll say "Dunno mate, I was at the pub having a beer and missed the lot" No perscpective is wrong, it all depends what your country was doing and what was sacrificed at the time. We can do a lot of speculation about what mioght have happened.
What if the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbour, what would the US involvement been then?
What if Hitler did not create the western front and invade Russia (he did have a treaty with them) and concentrate efforts on the demise of Britain?
What if the assination attempts on Hitler by the Germans had been a success?
What if they Australians actually had left the pub (public bar)?
Fascinating to ponder and speculate but I don't think we can determine any of those specualtions as fact. In the end though I would speculate you are correct and without the involvement of the US war machine things may well have been very different. But ponder this, had the Germans known where the allies where to land would the outcome have been the same. Great efforts were made including the dumping of a corpse in the English Channel with fake intelligence papers to convince the Nazi machine the landing was taking place at an incorrect location, and it worked with the German forces concentrating defences at the wrong places. What if they were waiting for the Allies, what might have been the outcome then?
CBracky, very very funny (and possibly unervingly true?). And my last opinion is that Robin Williams is a genius..not a nut
Yes I am sure he knew.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So, you're saying Bush knew they didn't have WMD and they still went to war?1234BGD wrote:
A lie is to claim that a country has WMD, and you know it has not and based on that LIE, you decide to take action which you know will result in loss of human life. Mind that it is much more dangerous that saying you will wear white shirt and actually wearing a blue one. Just as an example. If you don't like that one for whatever reason - let me know - I will come up with new onewannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Give one example of a lie. A lie is knowing that you are purposely misleading in the information given.
To say, "I will wear my white shirt tomorrow" only to find out that it's dirty and have to wear a blue shirt is not a lie.
What tickled your funny bone Bravery?Bravery wrote:
"Interesting opinion j-bass. I would actually argue that reason all of Europe is not speaking German is largely due to the British, French & Russian forces", sorry but this made me laugh in real-life. Wow, just wow. LOL.
Yep, I'm with 1234BGD on this one.1234BGD wrote:
Yes I am sure he knew.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So, you're saying Bush knew they didn't have WMD and they still went to war?1234BGD wrote:
A lie is to claim that a country has WMD, and you know it has not and based on that LIE, you decide to take action which you know will result in loss of human life. Mind that it is much more dangerous that saying you will wear white shirt and actually wearing a blue one. Just as an example. If you don't like that one for whatever reason - let me know - I will come up with new one
I love it when people think Europe would have emerged victorius from WWII if the Americans didn't come in and help. If America did not come in and help the war would have lasted much longer and in that time the Germans would have developed the Nuclear Bomb, not the US, and Hitler would have leveled London, Stalingrad, Moscow,,,, He would not have limited it to 2 uses he would have left Western Russia and the British Isles to be later developed into parking lots.
On October 9, 1998 some members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to Bill Clinton expressing their concerns about Saddam and his weapons program. That letter contained this paragraph:1234BGD wrote:
Yes I am sure he knew.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So, you're saying Bush knew they didn't have WMD and they still went to war?1234BGD wrote:
A lie is to claim that a country has WMD, and you know it has not and based on that LIE, you decide to take action which you know will result in loss of human life. Mind that it is much more dangerous that saying you will wear white shirt and actually wearing a blue one. Just as an example. If you don't like that one for whatever reason - let me know - I will come up with new one
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program."
That letter was signed by Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and John Kerry.
***************************
Bill Clinton, speaking from the Oval Office in 1998:
"Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
***************************
So, did these guys lie?
Google these:
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
RC-combat...let me guess you reside in th US? Interesting speculation. I understood that many German scientist went to the US (by thier choiceor not I don't know) to work on the US space program (later to become NASA). These guys were working on jet planes, with some limited sucess, in order to reclaim the skies, by gaining dominance in the air for the Luftwaffe. Whilst they did have a nuclear program I don't remember any great success. I just can't see your connection to the Germans developing and using Nuclear weapons had the US not been involved in WWII, but you may be able to educate me
nuclearSlartyBartFast wrote:
RC-combat...let me guess you reside in th US? Interesting speculation. I understood that many German scientist went to the US (by thier choiceor not I don't know) to work on the US space program (later to become NASA). These guys were working on jet planes, with some limited sucess, in order to reclaim the skies, by gaining dominance in the air for the Luftwaffe. Whilst they did have a nuclear program I don't remember any great success. I just can't see your connection to the Germans developing and using Nuclear weapons had the US not been involved in WWII, but you may be able to educate me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuc … gy_project
biological
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
In first Gulf War, Saddam might have had WMD and US knew that because they were probably helping him develop it to defend iraq from iran ever since 80's. Also, it was very unlikely that any of that weapons survived the first gulf war. After that, without appropriate support - it is not possible to develop that kind of weapons. The fact is, less than 20 countries in the world have capacity to make such weapons and put them on ICBM's or something AND MAKE THAT CHEMICALS A THREAT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. Their missiles cound not even reach Europe, not to metion US. The only realistic missile threat to the us can come from Russia and China - forget the rest. It is all in technology. Plust - how they are going to guide their missiles to target?! Tv controlled no, they need a satellite - and who would give them that?! There are another 100 reasons why they lied and they knew that.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
On October 9, 1998 some members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to Bill Clinton expressing their concerns about Saddam and his weapons program. That letter contained this paragraph:1234BGD wrote:
Yes I am sure he knew.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So, you're saying Bush knew they didn't have WMD and they still went to war?
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program."
That letter was signed by Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and John Kerry.
***************************
Bill Clinton, speaking from the Oval Office in 1998:
"Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
***************************
So, did these guys lie?
But, please don't feel personally offended or anything - there is nothing you could do to stop suffering of that people. Supporting the war would be the wrong thing. There are many other ways of exerting pressure on countries. If there was no oil for food programme (which also stuffed pockets of some men) I am sure people would have overthrown Saddam himself. Nothing beats the hunger... but no - greed is enemy of the free world.
Actually speaking of greed - in BF2 greed of my opponents is my ally. I kill a guy, and I see medic running to revive him - greedy medic, wants some points. I do not shoot him before he revives the friend, but toss a grenade... that is how in BF2, greed of oponents is my ally.
See my post in the upper parts of this page about this matter.rc-combat wrote:
I love it when people think Europe would have emerged victorius from WWII if the Americans didn't come in and help. If America did not come in and help the war would have lasted much longer and in that time the Germans would have developed the Nuclear Bomb, not the US, and Hitler would have leveled London, Stalingrad, Moscow,,,, He would not have limited it to 2 uses he would have left Western Russia and the British Isles to be later developed into parking lots.
1234BGD: "Actually speaking of greed - in BF2 greed of my opponents is my ally. I kill a guy, and I see medic running to revive him - greedy medic, wants some points. I do not shoot him before he revives the friend, but toss a grenade... that is how in BF2, greed of oponents is my ally. smile"
Hehe, I do the same
the "A THREAT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD." could be Kuwait, Iran, Jordan, and many other countries next to Iraq. You're illogical in your thinking. Just because they can't reach Japan doesn't mean the world is not at threat by the WMDs.1234BGD wrote:
In first Gulf War, Saddam might have had WMD and US knew that because they were probably helping him develop it to defend iraq from iran ever since 80's. Also, it was very unlikely that any of that weapons survived the first gulf war. After that, without appropriate support - it is not possible to develop that kind of weapons. The fact is, less than 20 countries in the world have capacity to make such weapons and put them on ICBM's or something AND MAKE THAT CHEMICALS A THREAT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. Their missiles cound not even reach Europe, not to metion US. The only realistic missile threat to the us can come from Russia and China - forget the rest. It is all in technology. Plust - how they are going to guide their missiles to target?! Tv controlled no, they need a satellite - and who would give them that?! There are another 100 reasons why they lied and they knew that.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
On October 9, 1998 some members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to Bill Clinton expressing their concerns about Saddam and his weapons program. That letter contained this paragraph:1234BGD wrote:
Yes I am sure he knew.
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program."
That letter was signed by Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and John Kerry.
***************************
Bill Clinton, speaking from the Oval Office in 1998:
"Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
***************************
So, did these guys lie?
But, please don't feel personally offended or anything - there is nothing you could do to stop suffering of that people. Supporting the war would be the wrong thing. There are many other ways of exerting pressure on countries. If there was no oil for food programme (which also stuffed pockets of some men) I am sure people would have overthrown Saddam himself. Nothing beats the hunger... but no - greed is enemy of the free world.
Actually speaking of greed - in BF2 greed of my opponents is my ally. I kill a guy, and I see medic running to revive him - greedy medic, wants some points. I do not shoot him before he revives the friend, but toss a grenade... that is how in BF2, greed of oponents is my ally.
Again...
Google these:
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
And another thing... 1998 was ~7 years after the Gulf war which was in 1991. I had to do the math for you because you seem to be educated by a public school.1234BGD wrote:
In first Gulf War, Saddam might have had WMD and US knew that because they were probably helping him develop it to defend iraq from iran ever since 80's. Also, it was very unlikely that any of that weapons survived the first gulf war. After that, without appropriate support - it is not possible to develop that kind of weapons. The fact is, less than 20 countries in the world have capacity to make such weapons and put them on ICBM's or something AND MAKE THAT CHEMICALS A THREAT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. Their missiles cound not even reach Europe, not to metion US. The only realistic missile threat to the us can come from Russia and China - forget the rest. It is all in technology. Plust - how they are going to guide their missiles to target?! Tv controlled no, they need a satellite - and who would give them that?! There are another 100 reasons why they lied and they knew that.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
On October 9, 1998 some members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to Bill Clinton expressing their concerns about Saddam and his weapons program. That letter contained this paragraph:1234BGD wrote:
Yes I am sure he knew.
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program."
That letter was signed by Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and John Kerry.
***************************
Bill Clinton, speaking from the Oval Office in 1998:
"Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
***************************
So, did these guys lie?
But, please don't feel personally offended or anything - there is nothing you could do to stop suffering of that people. Supporting the war would be the wrong thing. There are many other ways of exerting pressure on countries. If there was no oil for food programme (which also stuffed pockets of some men) I am sure people would have overthrown Saddam himself. Nothing beats the hunger... but no - greed is enemy of the free world.
Actually speaking of greed - in BF2 greed of my opponents is my ally. I kill a guy, and I see medic running to revive him - greedy medic, wants some points. I do not shoot him before he revives the friend, but toss a grenade... that is how in BF2, greed of oponents is my ally.
Ok, first off: Aren't they allowed to have nuclear power plants now? What's next? They can't have iron cuse it might be used to make a knife? Second, Chemical weapons? Anything is actually chemical, even water you dimwit. Tell me what the found EXACLY! Then the "RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL" well oh shit, a fucking smoke detector is radioactive in small doses HOLY SHIT BLOW UP MY TOWN CUSE I MIGHT MAKE A DIRTY BOMB OUT OF IT!!wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
the "A THREAT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD." could be Kuwait, Iran, Jordan, and many other countries next to Iraq. You're illogical in your thinking. Just because they can't reach Japan doesn't mean the world is not at threat by the WMDs.1234BGD wrote:
In first Gulf War, Saddam might have had WMD and US knew that because they were probably helping him develop it to defend iraq from iran ever since 80's. Also, it was very unlikely that any of that weapons survived the first gulf war. After that, without appropriate support - it is not possible to develop that kind of weapons. The fact is, less than 20 countries in the world have capacity to make such weapons and put them on ICBM's or something AND MAKE THAT CHEMICALS A THREAT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. Their missiles cound not even reach Europe, not to metion US. The only realistic missile threat to the us can come from Russia and China - forget the rest. It is all in technology. Plust - how they are going to guide their missiles to target?! Tv controlled no, they need a satellite - and who would give them that?! There are another 100 reasons why they lied and they knew that.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
On October 9, 1998 some members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to Bill Clinton expressing their concerns about Saddam and his weapons program. That letter contained this paragraph:
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program."
That letter was signed by Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and John Kerry.
***************************
Bill Clinton, speaking from the Oval Office in 1998:
"Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
***************************
So, did these guys lie?
But, please don't feel personally offended or anything - there is nothing you could do to stop suffering of that people. Supporting the war would be the wrong thing. There are many other ways of exerting pressure on countries. If there was no oil for food programme (which also stuffed pockets of some men) I am sure people would have overthrown Saddam himself. Nothing beats the hunger... but no - greed is enemy of the free world.
Actually speaking of greed - in BF2 greed of my opponents is my ally. I kill a guy, and I see medic running to revive him - greedy medic, wants some points. I do not shoot him before he revives the friend, but toss a grenade... that is how in BF2, greed of oponents is my ally.
Again...
Google these:
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
Can you instead say what was found, when, where so I can see if your bullshitting or bullshitting. If Iraq had any WMD they got it in the 80's from the US, as 12345BGD said. They used it all against Iran. I know of only one country who has WMD and has used it, we should invade that country cuse the might use it against ME! Know of what country I'm thinking of?
Last edited by Nehil (2005-11-22 05:57:03)